Skip to main content
Glama

Valorant

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the neutral all-false annotations, the description discloses key behavioral traits: rate limit (5 per identifier per day), free usage with no quota impact, account-free submission, claim_token return, and the team's daily digest/review cadence. This adds substantial context beyond the structured annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense yet focused. Every sentence contributes: purpose, usage categories, exclusion criteria, reporting rules, claim-token mechanics, quota info, and roadmap impact. No wasted words, well-structured for agent consumption.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 params, a nested context object, and no output schema, the description covers the full submission lifecycle, the claim_token response/retrieval loop, rate limits, and the relationship to the Pipeworx catalog. It also preempts common mistakes (reporting non-Pipeworx tools, pasting user prompts).

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so parameters are already documented. The description adds genuine value for claim_token by showing an example invocation and explaining that it reads a previously filed report. It also clarifies that context is optional structured metadata. Slightly more detail on message formatting could push this to 5, but it is already strong.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a specific action ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by naming concrete feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and explicitly excluding feedback for non-Pipeworx MCP servers.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides explicit when-to-use triggers (wrong/stale data, missing tool, positive feedback), a when-not-to-use exclusion (different MCP server), and practical guidance (don't paste user prompt, describe in terms of Pipeworx tools). It also explains the claim_token workflow for following up on filed reports.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Valorant toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded shares the same router. ai_visibility_check is internally wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, discover_tools and suggest_questions both claim 'use this FIRST' as onboarding meta-tools, and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes pull overlapping EDGAR/news/patents data. The detailed descriptions help, but the redundancy is structural, not just cosmetic.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and several families are internally consistent (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, list_*), but the overall set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), verb_noun (get_agent, compare_entities), noun_noun (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_changes), and adjective/compound forms (deep_research, generate_llms_txt, ai_visibility_check) with no dominant convention. Readable, but clearly heterogeneous.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ 'too many' threshold, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's stated identity: a server named 'Valorant' has only 4 game-related tools while the other 31 form a sprawling data-research/prediction-market/utility toolkit. Even considered on its own terms, the set includes several redundant meta-tools and unrelated subsystems (npm scanning, llms.txt generation, memory) that feel bolted on.

Completeness3/5

The dominant data-research domain is well covered: discovery, single and grounded queries, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim validation, and subscription monitoring form a mostly complete surface. However, the server's namesake domain is severely shallow — the Valorant tools only expose static reference data with no match/player/esports coverage — and the prediction-market side lacks obvious write-side or position-management operations.

Resources